Newsletters: add 98 (2020-05-20) by harding · Pull Request #402 · bitcoinops/bitcoinops.github.io

harding · 2020-05-14T16:50:24Z

Lede, action items, news, releases/RCs, any additional notable merges @harding
Update the release/RC section Tuesday afternoon @harding
Changes to services and client software @bitschmidty
Bitcoin Core #18877 @jnewbery
C-Lightning #3614 @dongcarl

jonatack

Looks good so far!

jonatack · 2020-05-18T07:02:21Z

+  There's no need[^getheaders-details] to send more than one `getheaders`
+  request and Bitcoin Core doesn't send more than one block announcement
+  in an `inv` message, so this change should have no effect on Bitcoin
+  Core nodes who connect to Bitcoin Core peers; it's only expected


suggestions:

s/who/that/

s/it's/its/ (or "the")

jonatack · 2020-05-18T07:07:41Z

+
+- [Eclair #1395][] updates the route pathfinding used by Eclair to
+  factor in channel balances and to use [Yen's algorithm][].  Testing
+  quoted in the PR description says, "The new algorithm consistently


"Testing" seems awkward as a subject.

jonatack · 2020-05-18T07:17:49Z

+    elegance] the "elegance" of a simplified version of the protocol
+    that uses three transactions.  Dmitry Petukhov [posted][petukhov
+    tla+] about a [specification][sas tla+ spec] he'd written for the
+    protocol in the [TLA<sup>+</sup> formal specification language][tla+


perhaps add "(Temporal Logic of Actions)" between "TLA+" and "formal" to describe the acronym without the reader needing to leave the newsletter.

In general I do think we should expand unfamiliar abbreviations. In this case, I don't think it's useful---either people are familiar with the language or not. Those who are familiar with it either know what the abbreviation stands for or don't care about it. Those who are not familiar with TLA+ probably want to know more about it than the expansion of its abbreviation, so they're going to click the link anyway.

jonatack · 2020-05-18T11:41:38Z

+  There's no need[^getheaders-details] to send more than one `getheaders`
+  request and Bitcoin Core doesn't send more than one block announcement
+  in an `inv` message, so this change should have no effect when Bitcoin
+  Core nodes connect to Bitcoin Core peers; it's only expected


s/it's/its/ (as this is possessive and not a contraction)

Considering the sentence length, could also break into 2 sentences here with s/; it's/. The/

jonatack · 2020-05-18T11:45:31Z

+
+- [Eclair #1395][] updates the route pathfinding used by Eclair to
+  factor in channel balances and to use [Yen's algorithm][].
+  The PR description say that "the new algorithm consistently


s/say/says/ (or "According to the PR description: ")

jnewbery

Looks good. I just have a couple of nits.

I've pushed a commit for my write-up for Bitcoin Core n18877.

jnewbery · 2020-05-18T14:37:19Z

+- **Evaluate proposed changes to BIP341 taproot transaction digest:** as
+  described in [last week's newsletter][news97 spk commit], there has
+  been a request for [taproot][topic taproot] signatures to make an
+  additional commitment to all the scriptPubKeys of the UTXOs being


nit: s/all the scriptPubKeys of the UTXOs/the scriptPubKeys of all the UTXOs/ sounds slightly better to me (the first sounds to me a bit like a UTXO could include multiple scriptPubKeys).

jnewbery · 2020-05-18T14:45:37Z

+    that uses three transactions.  Dmitry Petukhov [posted][petukhov
+    tla+] about a [specification][sas tla+ spec] he'd written for the
+    protocol in the [TLA<sup>+</sup> formal specification language][tla+
+    lang], helping to verify the correctness of the protocol (to a


This parenthetical is a little awkward. I think it can be removed.

harding · 2020-05-18T15:11:00Z

Made suggested edits (thanks @jonatack and @jnewbery!) and made a few small edits to the merge summary written by @jnewbery (thanks!).

jnewbery · 2020-05-18T15:51:51Z

ACK 99ea5a8. All looks good so far. Thanks for the quick turnaround, @harding.

jnewbery

Couple of small comments in @bitschmidty's section.

adamjonas · 2020-05-18T18:45:33Z

ACK f9a2f1e. Looks good!

harding · 2020-05-19T09:48:56Z

Thanks @bitschmidty for your section and @dongcarl for your merge summary! I made a few edits, most of which I think are self-explanatory, but two to Schmidty's section that might warrant additional explanation:

I added a mention about the protocol upgrade in the Blockstream Satellite section for two reasons: (1) so that it is clear to existing satellite users that they need to upgrade to get the ability to IBD over satellite and (2) because, from what I've heard, the new protocol is pretty nifty, so I wanted to mention it explicitly.
I moved the comma-delimited parenthetical in the Copay description to a separate sentence both because it was a bit awkward (and I never (ever) write awkward parentheticals) and because I wanted to make it clearer to readers that waiting four hours to fee bump is not a requirement of CPFP, it's a decision by the Copay authors.

As always, please feel free to revert or edit any changes. Thanks!

bitschmidty · 2020-05-19T13:24:55Z

added a mention about the protocol upgrade in the Blockstream Satellite

SGTM

moved the comma-delimited parenthetical in the Copay description to a separate sentence

I parenthetical too much. Change looks good.

jnewbery · 2020-05-19T13:52:51Z

All changes look good to me. Thanks Harding!

jonatack · 2020-05-19T14:07:01Z

+- **Evaluate proposed changes to BIP341 taproot transaction digest:** as
+  described in [last week's newsletter][news97 spk commit], there has
+  been a request for [taproot][topic taproot] signatures to make an
+  additional commitment to the scriptPubKeys of the all the UTXOs being


s/of the all/of all/

jonatack

Interesting reporting on a variety of client software and services 👍

jonatack · 2020-05-19T14:09:14Z

+    than existing protocols, it saves on transaction fees (both by using
+    less block space and potentially by requiring less urgency for its
+    settlement transactions), it only requires consensus-enforced
+    timelocks on one of the chains in a cross-chain swap, and that it


perhaps remove "that" here, as the previous clauses don't use one

jonatack · 2020-05-19T14:11:07Z

+    settlement transactions), it only requires consensus-enforced
+    timelocks on one of the chains in a cross-chain swap, and that it
+    doesn't depend on any new security assumptions or Bitcoin consensus
+    changes.  If taproot is adopted, it can be used even more privately


ambiguous "it"

perhaps "If taproot is adopted, this proposal (or protocol) would allow it to be used even more privately..."

jonatack · 2020-05-19T14:13:15Z

+- **Blockstream Satellite 2.0 supports initial block download:**
+  Blockstream [outlines version 2.0 upgrades][blockstream satellite v2 blog] to
+  their satellite service which include expanded Asia-Pacific coverage,
+  additional bandwidth, and an updated protocol that enabling a full node to complete an initial sync


remove "that", or s/enabling/enables/

jonatack · 2020-05-19T14:14:04Z

+
+- **Breez wallet enables spontaneous payments:**
+  [Version 0.9][breez 0.9] of Breez wallet adds the ability to send spontaneous
+  payments to Lightning nodes that support keysend.


maybe?: [keysend payments][topic spontaneous payments].

Only wanted to avoid because we used it a couple bullets earlier.

jonatack · 2020-05-19T14:15:39Z

+  since the first release candidate.
+
+- [LND 0.10.1-beta.rc1][] is the first release candidate for the next
+  maintenace release of LND.


maintenance

jonatack · 2020-05-19T14:16:37Z

+
+- [Bitcoin Core #18877][] is the first step towards support for serving
+  [compact block filters][topic compact block filters] on the P2P
+  network, as specified in [BIP157][].  Nodes that enabled the compact block filter index


s/enabled/enable/

jonatack · 2020-05-19T14:22:31Z

+  `getdata` requests that specify an unknown type of data.  The new
+  logic will also ignore requests for types of data that aren't expected
+  to be sent over the current connection, such as requests for
+  transactions on block-relay-only connections.


Perhaps describe or mention the change from previous behavior.

harding · 2020-05-19T18:44:41Z

@jonatack thanks for that extra review!

…commits

bitschmidty · 2020-05-20T11:03:55Z

Squashed and merged!

👍 team! Thanks to @harding @jnewbery @dongcarl for authoring and @adamjonas @jonatack for reviewing.

Co-authored-by: hulatown(OpenClaw) <clawdius@openclaw.ai>

Newsletters: add 98 (2020-05-20)

890386b

harding marked this pull request as ready for review May 17, 2020 19:54

jonatack reviewed May 18, 2020

View reviewed changes

jnewbery reviewed May 18, 2020

View reviewed changes

Comment thread _posts/en/newsletters/2020-05-20-newsletter.md Outdated

Comment thread _posts/en/newsletters/2020-05-20-newsletter.md Outdated

jonatack reviewed May 19, 2020

View reviewed changes

harding and others added 4 commits May 20, 2020 05:56

News98: add lede, action items, news, releases/RCs, and most notable …

edec62b

…commits

News98: Add Bitcoin Core n18877 write-up

a310a4e

news98: add client services section

5c38e42

News98: Add C-Lightning 3614 description

37dcdce

bitschmidty force-pushed the 2020-05-20-newsletter branch from eae32cb to 37dcdce Compare May 20, 2020 10:59

bitschmidty merged commit 125a1e2 into bitcoinops:master May 20, 2020

hulatown mentioned this pull request Apr 27, 2026

Newsletter-402: translate into Chinese PrimitivesLane/bitcoinops.github.io#219

Merged

hulatown added a commit to PrimitivesLane/bitcoinops.github.io that referenced this pull request May 1, 2026

Add Chinese translation for Newsletter bitcoinops#402 (#219)

5dc4ec5

Co-authored-by: hulatown(OpenClaw) <clawdius@openclaw.ai>

Conversation

harding commented May 14, 2020 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

jonatack left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

jnewbery left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

harding commented May 18, 2020

Uh oh!

jnewbery commented May 18, 2020

Uh oh!

jnewbery left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

adamjonas commented May 18, 2020

Uh oh!

harding commented May 19, 2020

Uh oh!

bitschmidty commented May 19, 2020 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

jnewbery commented May 19, 2020

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

jonatack left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

jonatack May 19, 2020 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

jonatack May 19, 2020 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

harding commented May 19, 2020

Uh oh!

bitschmidty commented May 20, 2020

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

harding commented May 14, 2020 •

edited

Loading

bitschmidty commented May 19, 2020 •

edited

Loading

jonatack May 19, 2020 •

edited

Loading

jonatack May 19, 2020 •

edited

Loading